Project Timeline 2005–2010

Skip to content

My summary notes from meeting with Ian Davis (December 08) re suggestions for progressing Matrix design.

Suggests we redo the elements in the quadrants to make their key parameters tighter. The quadrants should show:

As we have it the opportunities and threats act as a list of consequences.

That’s OK but it would also be useful to dot point the key elements from the quadrants, reflected in each narrative, that define the content of the narratives.

(Currently we mention the drivers for each narrative, but do not dot point how they are arrived at from elements in the quadrants.

Suggests we do not “blend” the consequences (as we have done) but leave it to participants to extrapolate the consequences

Rather than a “list” of things, Davis proposes we conclude the Matrix with a storyline or “hypothesis” from each one, that leads us into the full story that’s been written from it, by the researchers (we accommodate in the process that different participants may propose different hypothesis than us). But the hypothesis would act as a clear marker to the thrust of the stories.

Thus advocate of the Matrix being an easily identifiable “chain of logic” and “framework” for participant’s own foresight work, even if their own hypotheses, drawn from such a process, are wildly different. Advocates this approach will be more readable to people and a better basis for arguing different interpretations. (This may assist some people, rather than just saying go away and write your own story, as they would have more of the method to follow in doing it).